In construction claims the mantra of “pay now argue later” is nothing new. It is and always has been the fundamental principle underpinning adjudication. The recent decision in Avanton Capital CC Ltd v LUC Construction Ltd [2026] EWHC 2630 (TCC) (15 October 2026) (Constable J) is a timely reminder that the courts are reluctant to move away from this principle.
Following an adjudication concerning the final account of the development project LUC Construction was ordered to pay Avanton Capital over £1.87 million. LUC sought to resist enforcement, arguing that Avanton was a financially weak Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) and would be unable to repay the money if the decision was overturned in any subsequent arbitration. In addition (inter alia) LUC claimed that payment would likely force it to cease trading.
Following a careful analysis of the facts Constable J refused a stay of execution on the basis that LUC failed to demonstrate a probable inability to repay. Simply pointing to financial uncertainty was not enough. In addition, the fact that LUC knew Avanton was an SPV when it contracted with it and so it could not readily rely on its structure to resist enforcement.
The key takeaway of this case is that evidence is everything. Financial hardship is not a get out of jail free card. If you wish to resist enforcement, you need compelling evidence not just a compelling argument.
In summary, the message continues to be clear from the TCC that the mantra pay now argue later still holds true.
If you are involved in a construction dispute, need advice on adjudication, or require assistance enforcing or resisting an adjudicator's decision, contact our specialist construction solicitors today on 0161 696 6170 to discuss your options.
Comments